Appeal No. 2004-2258
Application 10/145,543
specification indicates that such tables are “typically stored on random access storage
devices...such as magnetic or optical disk drives for semi-permanent storage.” The
instant invention seeks to take such a large database table and place it within memory.
Therefore, the in-memory database table of the instant claims must be capable of at
least semi-permanent storage. The mapping in Pereira does not constitute data, and
the data that is using the mapping table is clearly not in “semi-permanent storage,” as
apparently required by the instant claims, because any data using the mapping table of
Pereira is fleeting data; it is not stored “semi-permanently” and may not be considered
to be “data in an in-memory database table,” as claimed.
Moreover, in our view, the examiner has not provided sufficient motivation for
combining the applied references. The examiner appears to have picked and chosen
various references based on a word search, finding “received property search requests”
in Wittgreffe (column 3, line 62), “to retrieve the specified number of rows starting at or
near the row...” in Peltonen (column 18, lines 54-56), “a signed number of rows to
return” in Peltonen (column 16, line 37), “locate the qualified data objects” in Hooper
(column 7, lines 45-46), and “mapping can be stored in the form of a table in the DBMS,
in memory” in Pereira (column 9, lines 63-65), and then simply declaring that it would
have been obvious to combine the teachings of these references because they all
“teach the use of databases with tables and Hooper and Pereira use in-memory access
to data” (answer-page 5).
This conclusion of obviousness based on the commonality of certain elements is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007